Re: 'monotonic increasing'

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Huh.  You learn somethin' new every day...

On Feb 17, 2006, at 16:06, Tom.Petch wrote:
I agree that there is no clear cut case where security will be compromised, but as long as RFC eg RFC1510 (kerberos) tie the concept of nonce to a monotonic increasing sequence, I think the risk is there and could easily be avoided if we
started using the term 'strictly increasing' instead.

Fortunately, it just so happens that we dropped that text in updating 1510=>4120. :-)

Ken

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]